4 ms·

This is precisely what Graeber said at the end of his book Bullshit Jobs, and it's a solid argument. Quoting from the book: "Basic income might seem like it is

This is precisely what Graeber said at the end of his book Bullshit Jobs, and it's a solid argument. Quoting from the book: "Basic income might seem like it is a vast expansion of state power, since presumably its the government (or some quasi-state institution like a central bank) that would be creating and distributing the money, but, in fact, its the exactly the reverse. Huge sections of government and precisely, the most intrusive and obnoxious ones, since they are most deeply involved in the moral surveillance of ordinary citizens would be instantly made unnecessary and could be simply closed down. Yes, millions of minor government officials and benefit advisors like Leslie would be thrown out of their current jobs, but theyd all receive basic income too. Maybe some of them will come up with something genuinely important to do, like installing solar panels, as Leslie suggests, or discovering the cure for cancer. But it wouldn't matter if they instead formed jug bands, devoted themselves to restoring antique furniture, spelunking, translating mayan hieroglyphics, or trying to set the world record for having sex at an advanced age. Let them do what they like! Whatever they end up doing, they will almost certainly be happier than they are now, imposing sanctions on the unemployed for arriving late at cv-building seminars or checking to see if the homeless are in possession of three forms of id; and everybody else will be better off for their newfound happiness."

wahern 5y ago
> But it wouldn't matter if they instead formed jug bands, devoted themselves to restoring antique furniture, spelunking, translating mayan hieroglyphics, or trying to set the world record for having sex at an advanced age. How optimistic. You don't think some of them are going to prepare for the next January 6th insurrection? What happened to the near universal assessments of various conflict theories (mostly recently, those purporting to explain the emergence of Islamic extremism, 1980s-2000s) that pinned the emergence and expansion of violence on the idle hands of young men (and increasingly, as with ISIS, young women), mostly from working- and middle-class backgrounds that weren't threatened with starvation or homelessness. Are we going to recapitulate Facebook and general techno-anarchy optimism all over again, where we deliberately ignore pathologies in contemporary human culture in favor of narratives that fit the peculiar desires and anxieties of the technocratic elite?
- totony 5y ago
  In other words, it's hard to control people who are not fighting to survive. So let's keep them slaving away?
  - wahern 5y ago
    I'm not advocating destroying the internet just because social media has gotten out of control, unleashing some very dark pathologies in our society. I'm just pointing out that there are some things we need to figure out before, or at least in tandem with, some other policy changes. If you ask me, this faux anti-authoritarian obsession you've expressed is very much part of the problem. If you have a society steeped in victim culture, that believes it's oppressed by both its own historic metrics as well as contemporary international standards, what do you think will happen when you give it more rope? You think those feelings of oppression will dissipate? No, because those feelings are only very loosely tied, if they're tied at all, to objective conditions. Paradoxically, a society very likely already must believe it's in a good place for it to actually maximize the benefit of greater wealth transfer. If the design is to use policy to nudge culture in a certain direction, then you're going to have to be very smart and incremental about it. Otherwise, as a general matter, culture usually precedes successful legal policy. Post Civil Rights-era activism seems to have convinced Americans it works the other way around, but it doesn't.
    - totony 5y ago
      I highly doubt opposing giving people more freedom because you think society is in a bad shape (why? social media? I don't think this is as big an issue as you make it seem) is either morally right or useful. Clearly things could be better w/r to people's view of Internet, but that doesn't prevent doing other things to make other facets of life better. Moreover, this fear of social unrest because of this new social media craze/new-woke extremism and closed-mindedness of other views is a middle-class thing. Poor people can't afford to waste their time arguing on social media/protesting/going deeper down the rabbit hole. Even if it were moral to oppose UBI on such grounds, I do not believe it is an actual issue that would get worse because of UBI. EDIT: Or I guess it might, by making these people middle class/giving them too much time. I still think this is immoral and not grounds on which a democratic society should oppose policies.

wahern 5y ago

> But it wouldn't matter if they instead formed jug bands, devoted themselves to restoring antique furniture, spelunking, translating mayan hieroglyphics, or trying to set the world record for having sex at an advanced age. How optimistic. You don't think some of them are going to prepare for the next January 6th insurrection? What happened to the near universal assessments of various conflict theories (mostly recently, those purporting to explain the emergence of Islamic extremism, 1980s-2000s) that pinned the emergence and expansion of violence on the idle hands of young men (and increasingly, as with ISIS, young women), mostly from working- and middle-class backgrounds that weren't threatened with starvation or homelessness. Are we going to recapitulate Facebook and general techno-anarchy optimism all over again, where we deliberately ignore pathologies in contemporary human culture in favor of narratives that fit the peculiar desires and anxieties of the technocratic elite?

totony 5y ago
In other words, it's hard to control people who are not fighting to survive. So let's keep them slaving away?
- wahern 5y ago
  I'm not advocating destroying the internet just because social media has gotten out of control, unleashing some very dark pathologies in our society. I'm just pointing out that there are some things we need to figure out before, or at least in tandem with, some other policy changes. If you ask me, this faux anti-authoritarian obsession you've expressed is very much part of the problem. If you have a society steeped in victim culture, that believes it's oppressed by both its own historic metrics as well as contemporary international standards, what do you think will happen when you give it more rope? You think those feelings of oppression will dissipate? No, because those feelings are only very loosely tied, if they're tied at all, to objective conditions. Paradoxically, a society very likely already must believe it's in a good place for it to actually maximize the benefit of greater wealth transfer. If the design is to use policy to nudge culture in a certain direction, then you're going to have to be very smart and incremental about it. Otherwise, as a general matter, culture usually precedes successful legal policy. Post Civil Rights-era activism seems to have convinced Americans it works the other way around, but it doesn't.
  - totony 5y ago
    I highly doubt opposing giving people more freedom because you think society is in a bad shape (why? social media? I don't think this is as big an issue as you make it seem) is either morally right or useful. Clearly things could be better w/r to people's view of Internet, but that doesn't prevent doing other things to make other facets of life better. Moreover, this fear of social unrest because of this new social media craze/new-woke extremism and closed-mindedness of other views is a middle-class thing. Poor people can't afford to waste their time arguing on social media/protesting/going deeper down the rabbit hole. Even if it were moral to oppose UBI on such grounds, I do not believe it is an actual issue that would get worse because of UBI. EDIT: Or I guess it might, by making these people middle class/giving them too much time. I still think this is immoral and not grounds on which a democratic society should oppose policies.